Where has the NDX into Hugo thread gone?

So far Simon i find it lacks the Naim bounce i'm used to but is richer harmonically. Interesting Stuff.

Whilst not completely a direct comparison of the source i am trying two different approaches which for me personally are valid as this is how i would use them. I am comparing the Hugo into a Nap160, the same as i used to use but with the DacV1, with a CD5/FC2X into a Nait2, both driving SL2's. The Hugo/160 is richer, smoother, slightly more detailed and probably overall easier to listen to. The CD5/Nait is more direct, more emotive and demands my attention more.If i had to choose right now, i'd take the latter.

Presently i can't try the Hugo into the Nait2 as i don't have the right cable, although i do have a NaitXS with phono's i could try but don't want to take it out of my other system, and as i say was not the way i wanted to use it. Judging from my previous experience of the Naim DacV1/160 however i'd put most of the differences down to the two Dac's and not the amplifier.

Actually it was about adding a Hugo DAC onto the Naim streamers, but has twisted, turned, got deleted, reborn etc... So has covered many variations from the original post.

Simon

There's an entertaining review of the Hugo on the 'Wam. They think it's great as a headphone DAC but don't rate it as a DAC for a full system.

Well it takes all sorts.. Nothing like being an au contraire to gain attention.

i had another audio buddy around last week, this time a more or less exclusive vinyl buff  who was very impressed with the Hugo in my Naim classic series system.. Especially with 40s, 50s, 60s jazz recordings. He was less impressed with an early (late 80s) digital mastering of Bryan Ferry compared to the vinyl equivalent. .. I couldn't disagree. some of those early digital masters are rather poor..

Simon

Yes, it's surprising how a very good DAC like the Hugo can bring out the best in recordings which were made in the days when techniques and equipment were both fairly basic but can at the same time ruthlessly expose poor mastering.  I'm enjoying exploring the Qobuz jazz section which includes some real old gems.

Regards, Philip

What does 'richer harmonically' mean?  I won't even ask what a NAM bounce is!

Simon many 80s digital masters were actually recorded at 44.1/16, so take away an allowance for headroom and how many bits might you end up with?  I remember a few years back after doing an upgrade on my TT (my Linn not my Galibier) and doing the normal thing of blasting through what LPs were easily to hand at the time - I had just cleaned a batch of classical LPs from our local Oxfam shop and was having a lovely time.  Until that was, I put on a recording that sounded like it was CD on a poor CD player.  What the F*&^ is going on?  I said.  Well when I had a look at the cover I found it had been recorded at 44.1/16 and they (EMI) were quite proud of the fact.  So I can understand your mate.

I sense you know exactly what i mean.

@ Simon. Curiosity got the better of me Simon, so i put the NaitXS in with the Hugo running from a set of phonos and prefer this setup over using the Hugo straight out to a 160 power amp. 

Gary interesting, and perhaps not suprising. I think the pre and power amp coupling / matching with Naim devices is rather important.

Simon

Indeed Simon, i am not exactly surprised. It is all sounding very good.

Well beyond drive capability what else is there in matching a pre and power amp?  Does that perhaps suggest that the Hugo does not have a lot of drive?  Which would be surprising for a device that can, we are told, drive low impedance headphones.  Remember it will still go through the output stages of the Hugo when you use your NAIM preamp.  I am just struggling to understand what a NAIM preamp can "add" here that the Hugo lacks.  Which in the Analog domain is difficult to see.

Gary believe me I don't - it sounds a bit hifi-journo to me.

Maybe it's the Naim pre-amps that "add" the magical PRaT

Seriously though, yours is a good question.  Either the Naim pre-amps are not messing up the signal or somehow they are adding a "coloration" that is very appealing.

Big Bill - I don't have the answers - but I do know that to my ears a

202 -> 200 sounds fine

282 -> 200 sounds great

202 -> 250.2 sounds poor

282 -> 250.2 sounds superb

So there is some sort of matching going on between NAC and NAP and I see no reason why that should somehow be limited to Naim electronics and could well be what is happening with Hugo - clearly Gary could hear something going on.

Simon

[Edited corrections]

 Simon, exactly my findings w.r.t those pre-/power amp combinations. 

Bill - I agree. If the impedance match is correct then the Hugo or whatever volume controlled source should drive a Naim power amp. The old 'time alignment' boards ( The 729 boards in the NAC 32.5 / 72 and the circuitry in some form is still used in the pre-amps today) used to give a lot of the Naim 'sound' - something you tend to lose if you feed a Naim power amp directly. As i said in another thread, i've tried feeding various Naim power amps directly and found i preferred the sound with a Naim preamp in circuit. 

James

i don't care about the technical aspect, it sounds better going through the pre amp and that's it. 

I apologise if my language isn't quite right - I'm recovering from local anaesthetic.

There's no impedance match as such

Source (Hugo or pre-amp output stage) <100Ω

Power Amp input >10kΩ

Load ratio <1%      (c.f. Ethernet or RF coax)

However you can still have resonance effects, and can be cable influenced.

Yes impedance match was a poor explanation for just saying suitable loading on my part. 

+1 Unless the Hugo is your only source then connection via a preamp is a necessity, and even if it is then the lack of remote volume control makes it inconvenient.

What's the consensus on the Hugo volume level setting? I've found that it sounds better cranking the volume on the Hugo down quite a bit, the light is a nice turquoise colour. 

Steve

That's my (colour) level as well, it gives me enough room to play with using the volume control of the 282.

Don't notice any degradation of sound level using the Hugo volume control to change the output level.

Cheers

Aleg

I found it sounded a bit harsh when set at the highest level, probably due the lack of headroom with the preamp volume control. I'm pleased we've found the same level.

The highest level on Hugo gives out 3.0V, which is too much for the 75mV sensitivity of the 282.

The regular volume-bypass level is 2.1V IIRC, and leaves too little bandwidth in volume control for the 282 to play with.

The turquoise level is just right.